Court: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana

In this action, Plaintiff Jerry Lejeune alleges occupational asbestos exposure as a deckhand and/or driller for various employers at job sites in Louisiana, beginning in 1973. Plaintiff further alleges the occupational asbestos exposure caused him to develop mesothelioma. Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging claims against various defendants, including G. Denver and Co., LLC.  Plaintiff claims defendant was the supplier, distributor and/or manufacturer of asbestos-containing products.

Plaintiff was the only fact witness that appeared for a deposition in this case. In that regard, plaintiff testified that he removed and replaced gaskets on mud pumps manufactured by defendant while employed by Loffland Brothers from approximately 1975 until the mid-1980s. However, according to his deposition testimony and expert evidence produced to date, the gaskets that plaintiff manipulated on defendant’s pumps were either paper or rubber gaskets, neither of which contained asbestos.

Defendant ultimately filed a motion for summary judgment upon conclusion of discovery. Defendant’s dispositive motion argued, among other things, that it is entitled to summary judgment because there is no admissible evidence that plaintiff ever worked with or around any asbestos-containing gaskets on defendant’s equipment and that plaintiff’s alleged exposure to any such product was a substantial factor in the development of his mesothelioma.

In the case at bar, the Federal Court initially found there was no evidence within the record demonstrating plaintiff was exposed to a particular asbestos-containing product attributable to defendant. Rather, plaintiff’s only recollection regarding work with defendant’s products exclusively concerned paper or rubber gaskets – products that did not contain asbestos. Defendant thus pointed to an absence of evidence that Mr. LeJeune worked with, or around, asbestos-containing materials while working on defendant’s pumps. The burden therefore shifted to plaintiff to demonstrate by competent proofs that there is an issue of a material fact warranting trial.

In that regard, the Federal Court found plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence establishing that defendant’s products exposed him to asbestos. Plaintiff has therefore failed to carry that burden. As such, there was no genuine dispute as to the absence of any evidence linking plaintiff’s asbestos exposure to defendant’s products.

Accordingly, plaintiff cannot prove his asbestos exposure claim against defendant. Consequently, the Federal Court granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment as a matter of law, whereby dismissing plaintiff’s claims with prejudice against defendant.

Read the full decision here.